AUGUST 8, 2007
The Warrick County Drainage Board met in regular session with President Phillip H. Baxter presiding, also in attendance were Nova Conner, Vice-President, Don Williams, Secretary, James E. Niemeyer, Surveyor and David K. Zengler attorney for the Board.
Also present was Sean M. Owen, Deputy Surveyor.
Minutes were recorded and transcribed by Cheryl D. Embry.
Present in the audience were Krista Lockyear, Dubia Engelbrecht, Rodney Unfried, Kimberly Unfried, Mac Unfried, Jim Morley, Jr., Dwane E. Erwin and Sheila Lacer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. President, I move that the minutes of July 25, 2007 be approved as presented.
I second that.
Motion was made and seconded. 3 ayes motion carried 3-0.
ORCHARD VIEW CONDOMINIUMS:
Jim Niemeyer: The next item for discussion is drainage plans and the first one is Orchard View Condominiums.
Jim Morley, Jr. project engineer. This is a replat of several lots inside of Engelbrecht Place Section 2 some of them have been platted before, some of them were just primaried they were a combination of commercial lots and single family residential lots and they are electing to convert those from single family residential and commercial into condos surrounding retention basin. The changes required for the piping that was previously designed are denoted on the plans and the retention required for the project is in the middle of all those condos right there and this all flows east towards Hwy 261.
They are in compliance with the drainage regulations.
Jim Niemeyer: Jim, this is all private, isn’t it, totally private?
Mr. Morley: Yeah, the condo’s themselves there are public streets in the commercial area that runs parallel to 261 that will drain through this to get to the basin but any added streets for this project are private streets, correct. Some of the condos will access existing public streets and some will access proposed private streets.
Jim Niemeyer: Have you changed or altered any of the discharge rates?
Mr. Morley: No, the discharge is regulated by INDOT and we did not go there everything else that was held constant.
Don Williams: Did INDOT have to give you approval to discharge out to 261?
Mr. Morley: We already have it, when we did Engelbrecht Place Section 2 we had to get that from INDOT and the discharge is no different for this project, so the drainage permit would remain the same.
Don Williams: For the overflow what type of pipe are you using and how deep is that going to be buried?
Mr. Morley: The overflow…..if you come back here there a surface emergency overflow that comes back this way and spills over the low point and comes out to 261 and that’s the same emergency overflow configuration that we had prior to this. It ran between two commercial lots instead of two condo buildings before. But there is a primary discharge which is the pipe, the next lot down the one you see going all the way to 261 and then the other one is the surface overflow and is a discharge.
Don Williams: The overflow but on the previous plans when it was commercial they were wider than 10-feet were they not, this base there, maybe not between lots but here we’re talking about 10-feet between two buildings, is that….if that pipe should get clogged or if it should get flooded is there going to be enough area to work on it?
Mr. Morley: When you……they generally try to keep them at 10-feet because you have depending on the zoning and stuff you have 5 or 6-foot buildings set on either side and it gets confusing when they start building buildings and there is easements one foot different than the building set back line or whatever. But that would be sufficient to get through there, what they would have to do if for example those buildings set higher above the road than on that side of the building then you would just have what they call an exposed foundation wall where the dirt is not as high on that side of the house. But you’ll see on there the control elevation as set as being 6-inches above the front of grate on the curb inlets, the emergency overflow weir is what you see here and that is controlled here and here.
Don Williams: So that is a pipe going under Park Place Drive?
Mr. Morley: Yeah, this pipe drains this way into the lake and then this one is the primary which drains out of the lake and then the emergency overflow is a surface flow which comes back this way.
Jim Niemeyer: So, this is an open swale here…emergency?
Mr. Morley: I don’t….I wouldn’t call it an open swale, it’s an emergency overflow, a swale would denote that it’s got drainage on a regular basis, this one only has drainage once the retention basin is exceeded. All the other times it has nothing in it.
Jim Niemeyer: Do you know, can you show or can you demonstrate that there is enough cover over that polyethylene pipe, that 30-inch?
Mr. Morley: Yeah, the pool elevation on this is at 418 which would bring the top of that pipe to 420 ½ and I believe the top of bank on this basin is at 422 which would give you a foot and a half of cover over the top of that pipe at its narrowest.
What I had there at
Mr. Morley: Which a foot is what is required.
Jim Niemeyer: Well, according to your notes its 14-inch, according to the manufactures’ specs. Might check that.
Mr. Morley: Yes, I can check that, I can lower that pipe if that’s the case, but all plastic pipe I’ve ever dealt with requires one foot of cover. That’s what we use on all our projects is one foot of cover. Either way that pipe could be lowered if that’s a deal breaker.
Jim Niemeyer: The way this pipe drains out and goes toward the highway there is about over 200-feet and the grade on that is what .25 feet?
Mr. Morley: This pipe here,,,that one drains this way
Jim Niemeyer: Yeah you’ve got the outlet 30-inch and then the swale goes this way, but will this not crop out at the surface up here?
Mr. Morley: No that area drain 9-10 which is here you have…4-feet deep basically 3.7 feet deep and its got a 24-inch pipe leaving it, I believe so you’ve got a foot and a half of cover there. When we…just so you know…when we do the design on it we have a program that automatically checks for cover and uses a pre-set limit that anything…everything has to have at least a foot of cover, so all that is checked via computer.
Phil Baxter: Any other questions?
Nova Conner: I know this looks great on paper, but in terms of we have had so many areas with flooding but you feel like coming from you know the basin there that that will never be an issue of that street getting flooding right there in front of the condos.
Mr. Morley: The way…I mean….it’s always…you can either do an underground emergency overflow or you can do an over the top sheet overflow, they both have their pros and cons. We do them both ways sometimes we put pipe in and sometimes we put pipe in and sometimes we put overland flow in….
Nova Conner: What determines that?
Mr. Morley: Developers choice sometimes, for example I’ve got one that I’ve got to talk to Jim about where it was surface and they want to take it underground because they want to delete the easement. It’s 6 and one half dozen of the other they both have pros and cons. But in this situation if you hold the…if the plans are followed and it’s 6-inches above the front of grate is your maximum height that basically 6-inches in front of the grade its your maximum height so basically 6-inches in front of grade is basically the top of the curb, okay your homes by building code have to have a bare minimum of 6-inches of fall in the first 10-feet of them. Generally buildings have to sit a foot to a foot and a half above the top of curb which means the emergency overflow weir is basically a foot and a half below the finished floor of the garage if you will and that is what creates the weir channel. This project is no different than any other project, it has to be built correctly to function correctly, you know but that would be the case if this was a piped emergency overflow or a surface emergency overflow or if it was 100-feet wide or 2-feet wide you know the best designed plans rest in the hands of the contractor. It has to be installed properly. Blankenburger Brothers I believe is going to be the contractor on this project and in the past they have always warranted themselves to be a very good contractor so I have no reason to think they wouldn’t build it correctly.
Nova Conner: So, you did say this was not really a change from the original?
Mr. Morley: It is a change of use but the discharge and the retention is no.
Nova Conner: It’s not changed, okay
Mr. Morley: There’s some minor tweaking but the discharges did not change, we had to relocate some pipes because of the condos and stuff like that but as far as the retention system and the discharge did not change, no.
Jim Niemeyer: Jim, are there any outlet controls on that…..
Mr. Morley: You mean is there an orifice on that pipe? No the outlet pipe is an 18-inch pipe which would keep it from having any kind of clogging problems or anything like that.
Jim Niemeyer: That is something that we would want to make sure of, that we don’t have a……………….
Phil Baxter: Are there any other questions? Any remonstrators? What are the wishes of the Board?
Don Williams: I move we approve the drainage plans for Orchard View Condominiums PUD.
Nova Conner: I second.
Motion was made and seconded. Motion carries 3-0.
Jim Morley, Jr. Morley Associates, project engineer. The first thing I want to hand out to you is…you guys received a letter about a month ago now, it was written when I was out of town and when I got back I saw there were a couple of errors in it so I wanted to give you the correction and I also am providing some drainage information showing the 200 year storm being contained within the basins of this project, so I’ll bring that forward for you.
Don Williams: Let’s talk about the retention basin for the 5.8 acres.
Mr. Morley; For both actually, I did both.
Don Williams: We’re only dealing with the one to the south, is that not true?
Mr. Morley: This covers both of them.
Don Williams: Well, at a later time, I’m just saying when that northern area, that 13-acres to the north are developed, we’ll know more about what is going with that area and we may want to change things, so my preference with the deal with the retention pond on this south front part 80-acres and you’re requesting a relaxation of the 75-feet on the legal drain, if I understand that correctly.
Mr. Morley: Not requesting relaxing just that the basin be build with partially within side of there. The paper that I just passed out it just kind of corrects a couple is issues the person who wrote it wasn’t quite as familiar with the project as I am. But the most important thing is probably the last couple of pages in which it shows that the two hundred year storm will remain inside the banks of this basin and at that point at the time of the two hundred year storm, I think on one basin it would flow through the emergency overflow two inches deep and in the other one three inches deep. However, at that time the creek would be up and it would actually would just barely discharge more than it would underneath regular conditions because when you have a 200-year storm in your basin you have a 200-year storm in your creek and when your creek comes up you can’t put water in it as fast because of the head differences. So it hold a 200-year storm with basically no difference.
Nova Conner: Did we ever answer or find out anything in terms of what business are going there?
Mr. Morley: I spoke with the owner and he said that he believes that it is some type of upscale mini storage or storage facility, but I don’t know more that that I don’t know a name or anything like that.
Don Williams: So, we’re looking at 85% or more of being impervious?
Mr. Morley: Yeah,
that is….I haven’t seen the sight plan my recommendation to you, their site
plan will come before Jim at Tech review and the same can be said for the
northern lot and whenever that’s developed or replatted or whatever that site
plan will come before Jim at Tech review also and at that time he has the
ability to say does your plan…is it in accordance with the drainage plan for
this subdivision if you have more than 85% impervious then you need to enlarge
your retention basin. But that is the opportunity that Jim has on every project
to make sure that they’re in compliance and I think that you do that now I
assume whenever we bring forward a site plan. We design it in accordance with
the subdivision drainage so if…I don’t imagine it could be over 85% but if they were over 85% then Jim
would say that you need to make the basin a little bigger or whatever to accommodate
for that. 85% is equivalent to like the
Don Williams: So you’re wanting to build the retention pond in 45-feet of the legal drain on the south side right now?
Mr. Morley: Yeah, I think we set the retention basins I believe they’re 30-feet from the top of bank the creek to the top of bank of the retention basin providing 30-feet for maintenance of the ditch and it was just dredged last year so I think you probably don’t dredge those but maybe once every 10-15 years. So it’s dredged for the next 15-years but as far as any type of maintenance, mowing, spraying weeds or whatever 30-feet would provide ample room to do any kind of work that you would need.
Don Williams: Well, you know our drainage problems in that area with the subdivisions behind it and the north end the fact that we’re currently trying to determine the best way to handle that water resolution whether it be taking it to the Ohio or more detention ponds or whatever we need to do. But I am not willing to reduce it on the North side today, now the South side which is what I think your request is about, I personally I’m not talking about either one of the other two commissioners, I’m willing to go 30 on the south side of the 5.8 acres side but the north side I would like to leave that alone until that is ready to be sold, developed so we will know some kind of a usage just to make sure, because you’re not planning, the way I understood it in our discussions the other day. You’re not planning on building that retention pond anyway at this point and time because nothing up there is impervious everything is dirt up there so there’s no need to deal with the north side that I can see.
Mr. Morley: Yeah, right now it’s all grass. Underneath that scenario when they develop lot 2B then would they come back to the drainage board to ascertain the final location?
Don Williams: For the drainage on that secondary, yes.
Mr. Morley: And then would you then just want that lake maintenance easement left off the plat at this time?
Don Williams: I don’t see any reason to put it on there because if we have to widen that ditch and that may be part of what we have to do is to widen that then the top of bank will change and I don’t want to cut it down to 30/30 at this time but I’m willing to go the 30 on the south side, but I’d rather not plat the north side until that piece of property is ready to be developed and then the Board can really look at that issue and perhaps it will fine just like its proposed now. But perhaps we’ll have to widen that and it may have to shift to the north slightly.
Mr. Morley: So at the time whenever that comes back and that basin is built at that point you may have more information on what you’re doing on that watershed and maybe 30 is ok at that time and maybe it’s not ok but you will have more information to make that judgment.
Don Williams: That’s what I’m saying, I hope that would meet the needs for the time being.
Phil Baxter: Any other questions?
Nova Conner: I still do not feel real comfortable until I know more what is going to be built there. I just won’t until I know exactly what is going to be built there and why. Because that backs right up to a neighborhood and I just won’t feel comfortable until I know exactly what’s going in there and how.
Don Williams: The only thing I’m thinking about there Commissioner Conner is with what he is proposing there is nothing that is going to go in there that would have any more impervious area than what he is proposing. Do you understand what I’m saying? There is nothing that is going to be any worse than what he is proposing that I can see.
Nova Conner: But in terms of why do we have to do it now when potentially…I mean….
Mr. Morley: We have to have Drainage Board approval to move forward in the platting process and the platting process has to be done for the sale of the lot. Jim Niemeyer had wrote a letter about a month and a half ago that touched on that issue of not knowing what was going in there so we would have to design for a worst case scenario so that is what we have done. Whether it’s a mini storage or a strip center or an apartment complex from a drainage standpoint what matters is how much is impervious and how much is not. The user does not play a role in that and what we’ve said is 8 ½ out of every 10 square feet is…..we’re counting for as being paved which is a very high high coverage rate and inside of that you’ve got areas included in that you know part of a berm in the back side of the ground that’s all grass. You’ve got an area around the lake that’s grass, you’ve got area between this owner and the frontage drive to the next lot back that’s grass. You’ve got building set back lines that will most likely have grass on them, so the 85 % is a…. in my opinion a worst case scenario of what could come in there. The user itself you know the name on the store the type of store doesn’t matter, the asphalt parking lot or the roof top has the same runoff co-efficient so from a users standpoint there’s not an issue there and then we sized the basin from the beginning I spoke with the owner of the property and we talked about the fact that there were drainage problems in the area and he wanted to voluntarily go above and beyond the requirements with the requirements being a 50:5 he suggested that we go to the 100:5 right off the bat. Then also provide that we actually do the 200:5 so at that point we’ve exceeded the……we’re over 4 times the design storm for the area. I’m aware of the drainage concerns in that area as there are some no doubt about that and we’re not trying to underplay that but from a development standpoint I believe we’ve covered that as aggressively as we can in reality if we knew exactly what was going there and what their site plan looked like you might actually have a little smaller basin because we have designed for a worst case scenario, if they come in and they have lets say some type of pervious pavers you know where it soaks into the ground, then we might actually come back to you with a smaller basin then what we’ve come to you now because we’re assuming worst case scenario. If we’re wrong and we oversized Warrick County still gets the benefit of that larger basin if we come back with basins designed specifically for our project there’s a good chance our basin will become smaller so the developer has gone above and beyond and tried to provide far beyond what would be required. I believe we’ve covered all those bases and then some.
Phil Baxter: Any remonstrators?
Sheila Lacer: I’m Sheila Lacer, Assistant Director of the Planning Commission. You’re going to reduce the legal drain to 30-feet on the south side, is that correct?
Don Williams: That’s what we’re looking at doing.
Sheila Lacer: Okay and then you’re only looking at Lot 1 Lot 2, we should place a note on the secondary plat when it’s recorded that it will need to come before the Drainage Board for Drainage Board approval, is that correct?
Don Williams: On that 13. whatever it is acres to the north that’s…..I think we have to take them separately.
Jim Niemeyer: According to this it’s lot 2B.
Sheila Lacer: So I can report this to the Planning Commission this evening and we can make that as a condition on the plot.
Jim Morley, Jr.: For clarification 2B would not have to come back to Commissioners and Planning Commission only to the Drainage Board.
Sheila Lacer: As long as the lot wasn’t subdivided, it they develop that 13 it would just come before you for drainage approval. Thank you.
The owner of the property came to the podium and personally thanked Don Williams and the rest of the Board for their efforts on his behalf and on behalf of the community. He did not know if this was the appropriate time or place but he suggested that he would certainly be interested in looking with Warrick County at the possibility of doing something with the remaining 13 acres as a large regional holding area for flood waters in that area if anybody would……..
Don Williams: Jim’s been talking to you actually. I think that’s an issue that we can approach and it’s probably not the time or the place for that and I don’t know there would probably have to be a lot of research done on that area and we would have to find out where the water table is and I’m thinking the water table is not very deep there so I don’t know if that’s a possibility or not but I think it would be worth looking at and talking about. I have mentioned to both Commissioners and I think Commissioner Conner was there when we were discussing that, Commissioner Baxter was not. But it’s something we’re looking at and I appreciate you’re openness to that.
David Zengler: Mr. President, for clarification you’re not reducing the right of way you’re just allowing them to……
Don Williams: We’re allowing them to put their drainage basin inside the easement, 45-feet of the easement.
David Zengler: Yeah.
Phil Baxter: What’s the will of the Board?
Don Williams: I would make a motion that we approve as long as we have the minimum of 30-feet between the two banks and let the north side be left out at this time, I move we approve.
Phil Baxter: Got a motion to approve, do we have a second? Do we have a second? I’ll second it.
Motion was passed with the vote being 2-1. Commissioner Conner voted nay.
HEMATOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF
Phil Baxter: Oncology Hematology
Jim Niemeyer: Oncology Hematology and Associates.
Don Williams: Where are they at?
Phil Baxter: Who represents this Jim, do you have any idea?
Jim Niemeyer: It
was the company here…..I talked to them yesterday and they said they were going
to be here. They’re from
Don Williams: I move we table the Oncology Hematology for two weeks.
Nova Conner: Second.
Motion was made and seconded to table. Motion passed 3-0.
NANCE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION:
Jim Niemeyer: The next one is Nance Commercial Subdivision and I have a letter here asking that this be table for 1 month.
Don Williams: That would be to the September 12th meeting. I move we table the Nance Subdivision to September 12, 2007.
Nova Conner: Second.
Motion was made and seconded to table. Motion passed 3-0.
EDWARDS DITCH-SCHNUCKS AGREEMENT:
Jim Niemeyer: The next is a discussion concerning Edwards Ditch and the Schnucks agreement.
David Zengler: I think that’s for me. I think you should have received in your packet or maybe you received a copy of the agreement that’s been prepared by Schnuck’s. Its S & M Properties and what this is obviously leading up to is for them to sign the petition for to make this a regulated drain behind Schnucks and that area and as we know if they will sign that is enough, they own enough of the area that we can continue with that. I have in reviewing this document I have a problem with basically only one paragraph and that is paragraph 6. Paragraph 6 allows S & M which once again is Schucks Corporation to put improvements within the 25-foot right of entry. I think that at a previous meeting we formally agreed to the 25-foot from bank but 6 allows them to put improvements so long as they’re reasonably commercial efforts to minimize the impact of such improvements on the Counties right to utilize the right of entry. I can just see us with that wording leading to problems in the future. It’s not my decision, it’s the Board’s decision but I….
Don Williams: Does the wording need to be changed or the paragraph need to be omitted?
David Zengler: I just think it needs to be eliminated. I don’t think…my personal opinion would be not to allow improvements within the 25-foot unless Jim has a different opinion.
Don Williams: Have you been in contact with these owners via phone or has it been by mail or e-mail?
David Zengler: Well, by both. You might remember Mark Delucio he has been here at some of our meetings and this comes from him. I don’t think I gave you the cover letter but this comes from him. The rest of it I don’t have a problem with.
Jim Niemeyer: Excuse me, did you get a memo from Henry Nodarse, the engineer?
David Zengler: No, let me see, I got a memo. Yes, I did and we’re sort of….I didn’t think it changed that. We’re changing Edwards Ditch to Edwards Ditch extension there are some language issues, but I think the main issue for the Board would be….my recommendation for the Board unless Jim has a different one since he’s been on site would be not to …….I would have problems with paragraph 6. The rest of it is ok.
Phil Baxter: I agree with you I think that should just be eliminated.
Nova Conner: I do too.
Don Williams: Now can we just strike it and approve it or can we approve it on the condition that item 6 be eliminated.
David Zengler: Yes, I think you can approve it and eliminate item 6 and I’ll just tell them that’s what you approved. I may be back with you again, but at least for today that would be my suggestion.
Nova Conner: So you’re saying……
Don Williams: Because 2 and 6 are in conflict and we either have the 25-feet, that’s the bare minimum of getting in there. I move that we approve the agreement with S & M Properties concerning making a legal drain behind Schnuck’s there with the omission of paragraph 6.
Phil Baxter: We have a motion to approve do we have a second?
Nova Conner: Second.
Jim Niemeyer: Dave, if all this is approved by Schnucks we have the petition signed by Wyntree Villas so we ought to be able to do some work if we need to.
David Zengler: If they sign it then we can proceed with that, yes.
Jim Niemeyer: Because I can’t get Pedcore the apartment people to respond.
David Zengler: We don’t need 100%. Schnucks, if I remember with S & M’s Property that should be enough.
WATERS EDGE SUBDIVISON-RODNEY UNFRIED:
Rodney Unfried, 9910 Waters Edge, Elberfeld
Don Williams: Are we talking about a legal drain here?
Sean Owen: It’s a drainage easement in a subdivision.
Don Williams: A 50-foot drainage easement?
Sean Owen: A 50-foot drainage easement within the subdivision and with our previous ones we need to not just allow him to build the building we need to relax that drainage easement by 12-foot.
Don Williams: Have you been out and looked at it? Is there any problem with it?
Sean Owen: No, it makes a very minimal impact in the drainage of the subdivision.
Don Williams: Are there any drainage problems in that area?
Sean Owen: Not that I know of, no.
Don Williams: You’re not in the town limits?
Mr. Unfried: No, we’re several miles south, actually closer
Don Williams: Because I haven’t looked at this, so I have to trust your….
Nova Conner: Did you say you had pictures?
Don Williams: Yes, let us look at your pictures that way we’ll know where…..here Jim has one he just didn’t bother giving it to us.
Mr. Unfried explained the pictures and that it goes underground.
Don Williams: Is that where it drains into this lake in the back, Jim?
Jim Niemeyer: Yes
Don Williams: So the swale is going back to the lake is this area here? So they’re still going to be out of the ditch. I move that we approve Mr. Unfrieds request to encroach 12-feet.
Nova Conner: Second.
Motion made and seconded to approve. Motion passes 3-0.
Don Williams: Mr. President, I move that we pay the claims for the sum of $24,689.78.
Nova Conner: Second
Phil Baxter: Have a motion and a second to approve. Motion passes 3-0.
Okay, have a motion to adjourn?
Don Williams: So moved.
Nova Conner: Second.
Phil Baxter: Motion to adjourn passes 3-0.
Meeting was adjourned then reopened for further business.
ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENT:
Phil Baxter: I declare the meet re-opened.
Don Williams: Mr. President, in signing these papers I realized that we neglected to fill our Vice-Presidential position which was filled by Commissioner Carl Conner, I would move that Commissioner Nova Conner be our Vice-President of the Drainage Board.
Phil Baxter: I second it. Motion passed with vote of 2-0.
Don Williams: I move that we adjourn. Motion was seconded. Motion passes 3-0.